5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kyiv.
6.  On 15 April 2003 the applicant’s twin brother (“Se.”) made a will in the applicant’s favour, according to which, in the event of the applicant’s brother’s death, the applicant would inherit an apartment (“apartment A”) and other property.
7.  Between 16 and 17 April 2003 Se. disappeared. The applicant claimed he had talked to his brother on the phone at around 8 p.m. on 16 April and they had agreed to meet the next day. However, when the applicant called his brother the next morning, nobody answered. According to statements from the applicant’s former sister-in-law (“G.”), (with whom the applicant’s brother had continued to share an apartment after their sham divorce in the 1990s,) on the evening of 16 April 2003 her former husband had been using the phone when she went to bed. As they slept in different rooms and as the door to her former husband’s room was closed, she did not know whether or not he was at home when she left the apartment on the morning of 17 April 2003.
8.  According to the applicant, on the evening of 17 April 2003 his friends, (“the Be.”), visited his brother’s apartment. They claimed to have noticed “the absence of the carpet and that [the applicant’s] brother’s son (“S.”) had a wound to his hand”. They also stated that G. and S. were very nervous.
9.  On 18 April 2003, the applicant and G. reported Se.’s disappearance to the Solomyanskiy district police station in Kyiv (Солом’янський районний відділ ГУ МВС України в м. Києві). According to G., the applicant’s brother had left their apartment at an unknown time and had not come back. She did not see him leaving. The applicant alleged that G. and S. knew of his brother’s whereabouts and requested that the police look for an acquaintance of G. called I.
10.  On 18, 22 and 23 April 2003 the apartment was examined by the police. The following items were seized: pieces of wallpaper stained brown, traces of a brown coloured substance from a radiator and door, a plastic pipe from the bathroom, a stool, a T-shirt, and running shoes and trousers belonging to S. Police also seized the deeds for three apartments, 2,000 United States dollars (USD) and 1,000 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (in cash) and Se.’s passport.
11.  On 26 April 2003 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence, since Se. had not been found among bodies awaiting identification and he himself had not sought the help of the police or been brought to a medical institution in need of assistance.
12.  On 20 May 2003 the prosecutor quashed the police decision of 26 April 2003 and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of kidnapping since “there were grounds to believe that [the applicant’s brother] had been confined by unknown persons”.
13.  On 30 May 2003 the applicant was questioned by the police. He said that his brother had told him he had received threats from his former wife and son.
14.  On 9 June 2003 Se.’s neighbours, (“B.”), testified that between 2 and 3 a.m. on 17 April 2003 they had heard the sounds of the water heater being turned on, the sounds of running water and what appeared to be the sounds of someone cleaning the apartment.
15.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant was informed that the police officers K. and O. were being disciplined for breaching criminal procedure law and for their unsubstantiated refusal to institute criminal proceedings.
16.  On 20 and 24 June and 1 and 4 July 2003, six forensic examinations took place. No traces of blood were found on the plastic water pipe or stool or the clothes confiscated from S. It was impossible to identify the owner of the blood on S.’s running shoes. The blood on the door may have belonged to a woman and there was a possibility that the blood found on the radiator and wallpaper was that of S. or G. However, on 7 July 2003 another forensic examination concluded that the stains on the wallpaper did not contain blood from either S. or G. It is unclear whether, as regards the wallpaper, two different samples had been examined or each examination had reached a different conclusion.
17.  On 9 July 2003, S. and G. were arrested. However, since there was no proof of their involvement in any crimes, they were released on 18 July 2003 and the criminal proceedings against them were terminated on 21 July 2003.
18.  On 21 August 2003 the criminal proceedings which had been opened on 20 May 2003 were suspended, as it was impossible to establish who had committed the crime.
19.  On 24 August 2003 S. was questioned as a witness.
20.  On 15 October 2003 the criminal proceedings on the charge of kidnapping were terminated and new proceedings were opened on a charge of murder. It was noted that “it appears that Se. was killed”.
21.  On 20 December 2003 the applicant was recognised in the proceedings as a victim.
22.  Between January and November 2004 a number of witnesses including Se.’s friends and neighbours, police officers, S. and G. and the notary who had certified the Se.’s will, gave written statements.
23.  On 10 March 2004 the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) informed the applicant that the officer investigating the case had been disciplined for inefficiency.
24.  On 29 November 2004 a forensic medical examination of the wound to S.’s hand was carried out. S. claimed that he had cut his hand on 18 or 19 April 2003 on a piece of broken glass from a jar. The examination proved inconclusive.
25.  On 27 December 2004 the case was transferred to the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office for investigation.
26.  Between May and June 2005 some of the witnesses were called again for additional questioning.
27.  On 2 June 2005 following a reconstruction of events which took place in the Bs’ apartment in the early hours of 17 April 2003, it was established that it was impossible to hear any sounds of washing and cleaning from the applicant’s brother’s apartment.
28.  On 3 June 2005 the case was transferred back to Kyiv.
29.  On the same day S. underwent a lie-detector test. According to the applicant, its results were not included in the case-file and were later lost.
30.  Between 5 July 2005 and 21 February 2006 S. was questioned again. The applicant was questioned five times, his father was questioned twice, and several investigating officers and a forensic expert, who had been present during the searches of the applicant’s brother’s apartment, were also questioned.
31.  On 9 November 2005 Y., the investigation officer at that time, was questioned as a witness. He stated that he had been present during the visit to the applicant’s brother’s apartment on 23 April 2003. According to his statements, parts of the wallpaper which had been stained brown had been cut out and removed by the police - allegedly for further forensic examination. Brown spots had also been found on the doors and on the heater. Some clothes were seized (a T-shirt, running shoes and trousers). He did not know what had happened to this evidence.
32.  On 16 January 2006, at a briefing in the GPO, it was held that the criminal case had not been properly investigated and the applicant’s allegations regarding the involvement of S., G. and M. (G.’s friend, whom the applicant had first identified as “I.”) in the crime had not been investigated. On the same date the GPO sent the following letter to the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office:
“After examining the material in the case file it was established that the investigation was marked by shortcomings. The allegations made by Y.B. Slyusar about the circumstances of the crime and the involvement of G. and S. into ... disappearance were not properly checked.
Unsubstantiated decisions to drop the investigation were taken. The case was transferred several times from one investigating officer to another.
The initial stage of the investigation was marked by delays and a number of tactical mistakes. In particular, much time was lost in verifying the statement that S.B. Slyusar had disappeared. Only after numerous substantiated complaints had been made by the victim’s relatives were criminal proceedings opened on a charge of murder.
The investigation was unstructured and chaotic ... no reconstruction of events was held and no checks were made as to whether it was possible to hear the cleaning of the floor and walls from the neighbouring apartment.
The majority of witnesses were questioned perfunctorily, without verification of the circumstances of the case. Despite statements from relatives, neighbours and friends that there had been a conflict about money in the victim’s family, no enquiries were made, at the initial stage of the investigation, into whether the former wife and son of the victim had committed a crime for monetary reasons. M.’s implication in the crime was not properly checked either.
It was not established how S. had cut his hand or whether he had an illness which could cause nose bleeding ...
The GPO is to be informed of the results of the investigation by 16 February 2006.”
33.  On 13 February 2006 M. was questioned. He stated that G. had told him that S. had killed Se. and had hidden the body. There was a quarrel between Se. and S., and the latter said: “You took my inheritance and I will take your life”. After that G. had heard some noise but S. had told her to stay in her room. Later she had seen two bags in the corridor.
34.  On 17 February 2006 the GPO informed the applicant that there was no evidence to support his statement that the case materials had disappeared.
35.  On 21 February 2006 M. was again questioned. He stated that he had been told by G. that the applicant’s brother had been killed by S., who had hit the victim with a dumbbell, cut the body in two, and had hidden it. On 22 February 2006 a face-to-face confrontation was held between M. and S., and between M. and G, with M. insisting that S. had killed the applicant’s brother and S. denying his guilt.
36.  On 24 February 2006 S. was arrested and released three days later.
37.  Between 4 October 2006 and 26 February 2007 the applicant, S., G. and M. were questioned again.
38.  On 9 July 2007 the case was transferred to the Kyiv Investigation Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (слідче управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ м. Києва). Between 26 July 2007 and 23 September 2009, the applicant was questioned three times with several face-to-face confrontations having taken place between the applicant, G. and S., and M. having been questioned also.
39.  In 2008 S. left for Australia.
40.  In June 2009 an “A.” enterprise informed the police that in 2003, allegedly upon the request by the investigation authorities, M. was interrogated by its specialists with the use of a lie detector. S. was interrogated in 2005. However, the relevant records were lost.
41.  On 1 December 2009 the case was transferred to the Solomyanskyi district police department in Kyiv.
42.  Between 1 December 2009 and 11 September 2011 M. and K. were questioned. The whereabouts of G. and S. at that time were allegedly unknown.
43.  According to the applicant, since May 2003 there have been sixteen different investigating officers in charge of the case, including two from the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office who handled the case from December 2004 to June 2005.
44.  The applicant’s brother’s body has never been found. The proceedings are still pending.
45.  On 19 April 2006 a TV programme called “Bez tabu” (“Without taboo”) which dealt with the disappearance of the applicant’s brother was shown on TV. The applicant states that it was filmed at the end of 2005 but that at that time the GPO banned it from being broadcast. The programme was finally shown six months later but, according to the applicant, with some of the initial footage missing.
46.  On 16 May 2006, S. and G. instituted defamation proceedings in the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv against the “1+1” TV company which had made the programme, the investigating journalist, the applicant and three of his family members.
47.  On 13 November 2006 the court found for the claimants and held that thirty-three different phrases used by the defendants during the programme were defamatory. The court awarded the former UAH 15,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and ordered the defendants to retract the false information by reading out the operative part of the judgment on the same TV programme.
48.  On 22 May 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal reduced the award to UAH 6,000 and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
49.  On 23 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the judgment of 22 May 2007 and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal.
50.  On 17 April 2008 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 13 November 2006 and rejected the claims.
51.  On 18 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 17 April 2008.
52.  In October 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pecherskiy District Court to have the death of his brother on 16 April 2003 formally recognised.
53.  On 22 September 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s request as criminal proceedings were still pending, no body had been found and there was no evidence that the applicant’s brother had died on the date indicated by the applicant. On 13 January 2005 and 6 April 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, respectively, upheld this decision.
54.  On 4 October 2006 the Pecherskiy District Court again rejected the applicant’s request − referring to its decision of 22 September 2004.
55.  On 29 January 2007 the same court found for the applicant in part and finally declared his brother dead. It rejected the applicant’s request for a formal declaration that the death had occurred on 16 April 2003.
56.  In 2003, the applicant lodged numerous claims against G. with the courts, requesting, inter alia, the return of some of his brother’s property and the eviction of G. from apartment A. The majority of his claims were rejected by the courts for failure to comply with procedural formalities.
57.  On 28 April 2007 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court rejected G.’s request to evict the applicant from apartment A. The court also rejected the applicant’s request for formal acknowledgement that G. had lost her right to live in the apartment as it had belonged not to the applicant but to his brother.
58.  On 6 June 2008 the applicant received an inheritance certificate for apartment A in accordance with the will and testament of his brother.
59.  In 2008 and 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against G. and S. in order to claim his brother’s property. The courts rejected his claims for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
60.  The applicant unsuccessfully lodged numerous requests to institute criminal proceedings against the prosecutors, police officers and judges who were involved in the case for, inter alia, forgery and neglect of their duties. and against S. and G. for perjury − but to no avail.
61.  He also instituted civil and administrative proceedings against various State authorities for negligence and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but this was also to no avail.